any person that does not get a job for any other reason then on merit of the work they do is wrong in my opinion.
Tattoos, piercings, colour of skin or disability, it does not matter if they are the best at the job they are applying for then they should get the job but if you are the best programmer in a list of CV's, and have the the right experience but dont get the job because you have a tattoo, piercing, colour of skin or disability, i believe that is wrong.
That is a very noble stance, however in the real world we have to deal with clients and often juries. How you are viewed by those people is part of the merit of your ability to perform a job.
As an extreme example, let us say you are absolutely the most knowledgeable pediatric dentist in your city, yet in your youth you chose to get a giant snarling dragon tattoo that runs up your neck and across the side of your face. Every time you walk into the exam room your young patients are frightened by your tattoo and run screaming to their parents. Is it discriminatory that you have no patients?
In our field it is no different. Your appearance and how you present yourself is part of your skill as an examiner.
It is not discrimination to discount a candidate because of their appearance, their ability or inability as the case may be to articulate, or many other factors.
How you are viewed by those people is part of the merit of your ability to perform a job.
That is true, and in a role where you are going to be facing clients/juries/children who may find such things inappropriate/unprofessional/distressing your ability to fulfill the requirements of your job are undermined.
While it is morally wrong to discriminate against things that are not choices, such as race and gender, in a free society, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the choices that other people make. That is the basis of freedom.
/scott
In our "free" society (UK), it is illegal to discriminate against religion as well, which one could well argue as being a "choice" - in fact our discrimination law was recently clarified in the 2010 Equality Act (http//
I think that as a society we are right to legislate in a way which restricts freedom to discriminate where discrimination is based on predjudice.
I've been in a lot of interviews (both sides - as a contractor and as an employer) - and the reason that gets given, and reasonably in my opinion, is that the person "would not be a good fit in the team" - be that because their sense of humour is lacking, that they are inarticulate or because their personality is incompatible with the team dynamic. Each office is different - some places are suits 24/7 and any deviation is frowned upon, others are jeans & t-shirts - in one or two offices tattoos have been a matter of discussion where names of good artists are exchanged and next artworks are debated.
I guess that the question, at the end of the day is perhaps - would I want to work for someone who discriminates against me because of my choice of treatment of my body if that has no impact on my ability to do my job. Never forget that the interview is actually a two way thing, you are assessing them as well as them assessing you.
I guess that the question, at the end of the day is perhaps - would I want to work for someone who discriminates against me because of my choice of treatment of my body if that has no impact on my ability to do my job. Never forget that the interview is actually a two way thing, you are assessing them as well as them assessing you.
This, as a fairly 'decorated' employee, is a very important point. I am grateful that my employer allows me to have piercings, tattoos and an unorthodox hair style, because they understand that it has no bearing on the quality of my work.
I've always understood that my body mods are a choice that may have consequences, and in my life I've seen my fair share of negative reactions, but so far none within the workplace.
In my opinion, for an employer in this industry to refuse to hire someone based on them having non-visible tattoos would be as ludicrous as them refusing to hire anyone with a side parting.
Ok, ok, freedom of speech, blablabla
Let's imagine a scene. You are a boss of CF company. Maybe some of you are. Today you review CVs or new candidates
Who will be chosen?
1) Guy in extravagant clothes, long hair, tatoos, etc (experience 5 years, great skill on forensic field)
2) Good looking guy with basic knowledge of CF? His main advantage nice suit, tie and shiny teeth
Come on. Answer is obvious. CF specialist WORK IN OFFICE and spend most of his day on computer.
Beauty is unnecessary in IT environment. Knowledge matters
In my opinion, for an employer in this industry to refuse to hire someone based on them having non-visible tattoos would be as ludicrous as them refusing to hire anyone with a side parting.
I do not believe that hidden tattoos are the issue.
Beauty is unnecessary in IT environment. Knowledge matters
Don't be so simplistic ! I hear what you are saying, but we aren't in an "IT Environment" we are in a business - at the end of the day all that matters to an employer is an ability to make a profit - if he can't send a consultant out to a site becuase his appearance _may_ offend a client then his ability to make a profit is impacted. Clearly it depends what market that you are in as to what image a company is expected to present - but in banking for example - the "IT Environment" is smart trousers and shirts, no trainers or sandals - long hair and tattoos are not going to be looked on nicely*. Governement, Civil Service, Military all have their own ideas, concepts, traditions and "uniforms" too ! As an external consultant charging a substantial day rate - my relationship with my client needs to be _very_ good and longstanding before I'll turn up to a client site in jeans.
If it impacted my ability to turn a profit, I'd go back and get new candidates rather than hire someone I can't make money from.
( I have had long hair, and currently have tattoos (admitedly currently covered by clothes - although I'm looking at getting some sleves done …) - so I'm not arguing against this - there are loads of jobs where this isn't an issue - but the real world isn't as idealistic as we'd all like it to be. )
* As an aside - my father worked in banking [as a banker] for something in the order of 40 years before he retired. Some of it in the City of London - it was frowned upon that he had a _beard_ as bankers were meant to be clean shaven - let alone long hair and a tattoo ! It isn't right, but it is life !
I do not believe that hidden tattoos are the issue.
By non-visible I mean any tattoo that can be hidden by wearing a suit, ie not on your hands, face or neck. Unless I'm mistaken, one viewpoint raised was that any tattoo, or piercing for that matter, is viewed as unprofessional. My opinion on that viewpoint is that it is unprofessional to judge a book by it's cover.
I'm not naive enough to say that such judging doesn't happen, but the idealist in me says that it shouldn't. If the only issue is with tattoos on the face, hands or neck, then as I've said these currently present a larger problem as they can't be hidden, and employers would arguably have more reason to reject someone from a client-facing position.
I say currently, because who knows what the future may bring? With celebrities like Rhianna getting (terrible) hand tattoos, a lot of studios have seen a rise in people asking for similar pieces. Most decent studios tend to reject requests for hand or facial tattoos unless the client is already heavily inked, precisely because of the stigma currently associated with them. Sadly this often doesn't stop the client going to a less discerning (and often less skilled) artist.
Note I don't mean for any of what I've said to come across as aggressive, and I mean no offense, just wanted to clarify my opinion )
Beauty is unnecessary in IT environment. Knowledge matters
Don't be so simplistic ! I hear what you are saying, but we aren't in an "IT Environment" we are in a business !
I don't agree. Every company is divided on sections, e.g management, maintance, production, IT
Function of management is contact with clients. In CF company, we "create" IT section.
In this section our intellect works, not our appearance. We just doing "dirty job".
Ok, so in my CF company, when a large corporate calls us and I need to send a consultant to collect or image a machine in their head office, when they have _their_ customers going in and out …
Or are you suggesting that I should employ a member of staff just to lock them in the basement ?
In real terms, I run my own consultancy, I have clients that include Govts and Internationals, I do _everything_ from low level forensics to writing policy. I assure you that people take a consultant a _lot_ more seriously when he arrives in a clean car, wearing a suit and tie with shiny shoes than they would if I arrived in a rusty old banger in jeans and trainers. It just doesn't work the way you think it should !
Incidentally, if we were to extrapolate your statement - our sales guys need to know nothing about the buisness because they "look and sound good" …
I used to believe what you believe now - but experience has taught me the financial benefits of being able to (a) communicate in the same language as business and (b) be seen to be a fit in a corporate environment _as well_ as knowing your job inside out and upside down.
Don't make the mistake of conflating body modification and genuine civil rights issues like race, gender, religion, etc. Tattoos are an aesthetic choice, like hygiene, grooming, and clothes – and choices have consequences.
I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, employers are well within their rights not to offer a job to someone with visible tattoos, so govern yourself accordingly.
/scott
Of course nowadays almost everything is a choice. Michael Jackson used to be black then "chose" to be white, and didn't Cher have a daughter who is now her son (by her choice)? Just sayin.